The Instigator
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheSquirrel
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheSquirrel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 438 times Debate No: 43048
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows

Pro

Rules

1. BoP (Burden of Proof) is on me.

2. No trolling.

3. No plagiarizing.

4. First round for acceptance only.

Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.

Definitions

Leibnizian Cosmological Argument -

1. The Universe came into existence, therefore must have a cause

2. That cause is God

3. Therefore, God exists

Sound - a belief turning out to be true
TheSquirrel

Con

I accept the debate and will refute my opponent's arguments that the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is sound.
Debate Round No. 1
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows

Pro

I thank Con for accepting.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument
P1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR].
P2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
P3) The universe exists.
P4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)
P5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).
Defense of Premise 1

Suppose I have a sheet of paper. Where did that come from? I shear leaves. I created it. I am the cause. HOWEVER, suppose I have an apple. Where'd that come from? I planted a seed in fertile land, watered it consistently (Daily basis), it grew into an enormous apple tree, an apple fell from it, and I grabbed it. THAT is natural.
Defense of Premise 2

If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists.

Defense of Premise 3

This is self-explanatory.
Defense for Premise 4 & 5
I have evidence to back up this claim (From Premise 1 & 2).
I await my opponent's set of arguments.


TheSquirrel

Con

Let's leave P1 alone for now, though I may return to it later as it has problems of its own. Jumping straight into P2. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." This point and its defense "If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists." are fallacious for the following reasons.
1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god.
2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy.
3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it.
P2 fails and the argument is not sound.
If I were feeling smarmy, I'd ask Pro to actually defend P3, but this claim is never seriously challenged, and we happen to agree, so moving on.
P4 and P5 Can not stand without the supporting weight of P2, as P2 makes all the assumptions necessary to claim P4 and P5 without defending them. I shall, in the interests of completeness refute them.
P4. "Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)" Perhaps it does. Perhaps not. This will be brought up during my refutation of P1 if I am required to debate that far. My main contention stemming out of P2, and having refuted it, I feel no need to refute P1 at this time.
P5. "Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)." Since I have refuted P2, P5 does not stand. I should also point out all logical fallacies in P2 are present in P5, which makes sense as P5 really is just an extension of P2.
During my refutation of P1 and P4 (should I go there) I will show the possibility that the universe has no cause, making the entirety of the argument pointless as it's base assertion is that the universe MUST have a cause.

As it stands, the argument is not sound due to the refutation of P2. I wish Pro good luck in round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows

Pro

HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows forfeited this round.
TheSquirrel

Con

Pro posts no arguments or defense this round. I extend all my arguments.

Summation of arguments:
P2 "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." and its defense are fallacious for the following reasons:
1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god.
2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy.
3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it.

P2 fails and the argument remains unsound. I await Pro's post for round 4.
Debate Round No. 3
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows

Pro

HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows forfeited this round.
TheSquirrel

Con

Once again, my opponent has forfeited his round, leaving me with no arguments to refute or defenses to argue against so I shall extend all my arguments. P2 remains unsound and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument remains unsound.
Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Seems like this topic is popular. I'm pretty sure I saw around five of the same :)
Posted by HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows 2 years ago
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows
For all monotheistic religions, he is defined as a being that created the Universe and everything in it. The Universe was created, thus must having a cause. Therefore, God created it. Therefore, God exists.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 2 years ago
Cygnus
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRowsTheSquirrelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems to me that all cosmological arguments from a Creator are the same and they're all based on logical fallacies. But that's not why victory goes to Con. Pro showed up, then disappeared.